The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo; it is a form of emanationism because it presumes the existence of matter and anti-matter; so it is essentially a materialist theory and very similar to the Manichean Creation theory. It appeared in modern science when the Michelson Morley experiment jettisoned the ether theory and with it scholastic metaphysics. It is radical dualism and its ancilla, quantum mechanics is Gnosticism: to maintain a materialist theory particles are posited and discovered, the way epicycles were invented to make corrections to a Heliocentric universe. See "1887" entry in the Chronology to the New Encyclopedia of Islam.

Two days ago, a casual observer, when told of the Manichean theory of the invasion of the world of light by the world of darkness (Big Bang) said that is what happened in the 2000 American election. Quite right. The Republicans stole the election and have since used destructive disruption as a means of imprisoning Light. The Empire of Darkness invaded the world of Light.

... In my opinion, the false reporting of the Michelson-Morley result was the worst error in scientific history! ...

Did the Michelson-Morley experiments prove there was no "aether wind"?

Probably not! They have been accepted by almost everyone as giving a "null" result, but in point of fact they showed a very interesting periodic variation indicating something. If it was the presence of an aether wind, then it was not behaving in the way they expected, but it was definitely something that needed further investigation, and Dayton Miller, working at first with Morley, undertook the task. The variations proved to be reproducible and to show systematic changes with time of year and some other factors. He also showed, incidentally, that the effect disappeared if you put the apparatus in a thick-walled enclosure, which nullifies several of the more recent tests. He summarised his work in great detail in a review paper in 1933 (Miller, Dayton C, "The Ether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 203-242 (1933)). For a much shorter version written in 1940 (the year before he died) see his article for the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

He interpreted his results as showing relative motion of the aether. It could either be that the solar system was moving pretty fast (about 200 km/sec, faster than the earth moves around the sun) in a direction roughly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, or the aether was moving in the opposite direction at that speed. The aether seemed to be moving like a fluid, going with much slower relative velocity near solid bodies, thus accounting for the apparently modest speed (about 10 km/sec) indicated by Miller's experiments.

These facts about Miller were drawn to my attention by James DeMeo, who continues to research the subject. It appears that there was a major difference of opinion between Miller and Einstein. Einstein's Special Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must have been null! The aether was not acceptable. DeMeo reports (January 2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly involved than he had thought. Much new material has been added to his original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written in consultation with Einstein. (Shankland had been an assistant to Miller in 1932-3. )

As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature. (Cleveland Plain Dealer January 27, 1926. )

It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse. By 1955 the aether had become a dirty word. Even in 1940 or so, I can find no reference to Miller's existence in Herbert Ives' papers (see The Einstein Myth in my book list). The 1979 Brillet and Hall experiment*, currently accepted as an accurate confirmation of Michelson and Morley's "null" result, appears to have been conducted in ignorance of Miller's work. They seem to have been unaware of Miller's conclusion that the aether wind can only be detected in the open. Their temperature-controlled Fabry-Perot interferometer would have had little chance!

However, let us not jump to conclusions! Could Miller in fact have been seeing the same thing as Gershteyn et al., who reported in February 2002** that there was an apparent periodic variation in the value of G? The data was not quite conclusive but appeared to show that its main variations followed a sidereal cycle, not a solar one. Could it be that a gravitational effect caused the arms of Miller's apparatus to bend and vary slightly in effective length?Or could it be that what he saw was merely an ordinary wind effect?Whatever it was, it should not have been ignored. Even if there was no sign of drift, this should not have been used to dismiss the idea of an aether, since all it means is that some wrong assumptions have been made about its properties.

Einstein the scientist was a very different person from Einstein the man. As far as I can tell, he was ruthless, for example, in suppressing Dayton Miller's work on aether drift, and in asserting his own precedence over Paul Gerber re his prediction for the precession of Mercury's orbit. (Gerber had published the same formula in 1898. The subject has been a matter for debate ever since.) He may well have acted in good faith, believing completely in his own model, but the net result was that false theories have dominated physics for nearly 100 years.
{end}

Have Einstein's relativity theories ever been "generally accepted"?

Many prominent scientist have expressed their doubts, but one in particular should have been listened to. Louis Essen, professional metrologist, inventor of the atomic clock and co-author of a book on the experimental estimation of the speed of light thought Einstein's ideas ridiculous. He may well have forfeited a Nobel Prize for saying this rather too publicly. As he said, Einstein's theories arbitrarily made "space and time intermixed by definition and not as the result of some peculiar property of nature ... If the theory of relativity is regarded simply as a new system of units it can be made consistent but it serves no useful purpose".

Some of your contributors find it difficult to accept my contention (WW October, 1978) that Einstein's theory of relativity is invalidated by its internal errors. Butterfield for example (WW February, 1987) denies that there is any duplication of units or any harm in obtaining results from thought-experiments. Moreover, if my contention is correct, the new experimental work described by Aspden (EWW, August, 1987 ) is not required to disprove the theory, although it might confirm that his assumptions were wrong. This is not to suggest that experimental results are not important but they should be considered as steps in the development of new theories.

Discussions about the theory tend to be very involved and your readers may be interested in a brief history of the subject which I wrote some time ago for a friend who wanted to know what the controversy was about and in particular what was the significance of the clock paradox.

The theory was an attempt to explain the result of an experiment which had been made to measure the velocity of the earth through space. Scientists reasoned that, since light is an electromagnetic wave travelling through space with a velocity denoted by the symbol c, and the earth is travelling through space with a velocity v, it should be possible to measure v by an optical experiment carried out in the laboratory. Michelson and Morley designed and used an interferometer for this purpose. A beam of light was split into two parts which were directed along the two arms of the instrument at right angles to each other, the two beams being reflected back to recombine and form interference fringes. The instrument was turned through a right angle so that, if one of the arms was initially parallel to earth's motion, it became at right angles to this direction. It was expected that there would be a movement of the fringes, from which the velocity of the earth could be calculated, but no change at all was observed.

There have always been ... critics: Rutherford treated it as a joke; Soddy called it a swindle; Bertrand Russell suggested it was all contained in the Lorentz transformation equations; and many scientists commented on its contradictions.

Fitzgerald and Lorentz pointed out that this result would be obtained if the arm of the interferometer which was moving parallel with the earth was, in consequence of this movement, reduced in length by the amount sqrt(1-v2/c2). Such an arbitrary assumption did not constitute a satisfactory explanation and scientists tried to think of a more fundamental cause.

Einstein came to the conclusion that the answer rested on the way time was measured and the simultaneity of two events was defined; and on the basis of these ideas and two additional assumptions he developed his theory, published in 1905. It was essentially the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell and Lorentz modified to incorporate the Michelson-Morley result. Later, in 1907, he extended the theory to include gravitational effects and predicted that light would be deflected as it passed near the sun. The prediction could be tested only by observing the path of the light from stars during an eclipse of the sun and in 1919 Eddington led an expedition to the island of Principe, where the eclipse was total; and when the results had been studied, announced that the prediction was confirmed. The theory was then gradually accepted, eventually being regarded as a revolution in scientific thought.

But there have always been its critics: Rutherford treated it as a joke; Soddy called it a swindle; Bertrand Russel suggested that it was all contained in the Lorentz transformation equations; and many scientists commented on its contradictions. These adverse opinions, together with the fact that the small effects predicted by the theory were becoming of significance to the definition of the unit of atomic time, prompted me to study Einstein's paper. I found that it was written in imprecise language, that one assumption was in two contradictory forms and that it contained two serious errors.

... he concluded that, at the end of the journey, the time recorded by the moving clock was less than that recorded by the stationary clock. The result did not follow from the experiment, but was simply an assumption slipped in implicitly during the complicated procedure.

The essential feature of science is its dependcnce on experiment. Results of experiment are expressed in terms of units which must not be duplicated if contradictions are to be avoided and units of measurement are the only quantities which can be made constant by definition. When Einstein wrote his paper, two of the units were those of length and time. Velocity was measured in terms of these units. Einstein defined the velocity of light as a universal constant and thus broke a fundamental rule of science.

One of the predictions of the theory was that a moving clock goes more slowly than an identical stationary clock. Taking into account the basic assumption of the theory that uniform velocity is purely relative, it follows that each clock goes more-slowly than the other when viewed from the position of the other. This prediction is strange but not logically impossible. Einstein then made his second mistake in the course of a thought-experiment. He imagined that two clocks were initially together and that one of them moved away in a number of straight line paths, at a uniform velocity, finally returning to the starting point. He concluded that on its return the moving clock was slower than the stationary clock.

Moreover, since only uniform motion is involved there is no way of distinguishing between the two and each clock goes more slowly than the other. This result is known as the clock paradox or, since the clocks are sometimes likened to identical twins, one of whom ages more slowly than the other, the twin paradox.

... I do not think Rutherford would have regarded (the theory) as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science. Einstein defined the velocity of light as a universal constant and thus broke one of the fundamental rules of science.

Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the paradox but the explanation is simple, arising from Einstein's use of the expression, "as viewed from". Clearly if the time of one clock is viewed to be slower than the other even when it has returned to the same position as the other then it must indeed be slower. But the rates of distant clocks are not compared by viewing them. Ticks from them are received and counted on a separate dial, a process now carried out continuously throughout the world for the synchronization of atomic time. It is the reading on this subsidiary dial which would be less and not that on the dial of the clock itself. If the thought-experiment is carried out correctly, the result is that the time of the moving clock as measured at the position of the stationary clock is less than that of the stationary clock. This is the same as the initial prediction, which is as it should be since a thought-experiment cannot give a result differing from the information put into it.

Einstein's use of a thought-experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which footed himself and generations of scientists. He convinced himself that the theory yielded the result he wanted, because the contraction of time is accompanied by the contraction of length needed to explain the Michelson-Morley result.

The round trip could not have been made without accelerations being applied, but Einstein ignored their possible effect on the rate of the clock, thus implicitly assuming that they had no effect. Some years later, in 1918, he used another thought-experiment in an attempt to answer criticisms of the paradox result. One of the clocks again made a round trip, the changes of direction being achieved by switching gravitational fields on and off at various stages of the journey, the time recorded by the moving clock was less than that recorded by the stationary clock. The result did not follow from the experiment, but was simply an assumption slipped in implicitly during the complicated procedure. The slowing down of clocks which he had previously attributed to uniform velocity, acceleration having no effect, he now attributed to acceleration, a line of argument followed in many textbooks.

Claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental evidence do not withstand a close scrutiny. There are grave doubts about Eddington's claim, both as regards the predicted value which was increased by a factor of 2 from that first given by Einstein and the way the results were analysed – some of the readings being discarded. The same criticism applies to a more recent experiment performed, at considerable expense, in 1972. Four atomic clocks were flown round the world and the times recorded by them were compared with the times recorded by similar clocks in Washington. The results obtained from the individual clocks differed by as much as 300 nanoseconds. This absurdly optimistic conclusion was accepted and given wide publicity in the scientific literature and by the media as a confirmation of the clock paradox. All the experiment showed was that the clocks were not sufficiently accurate to detect the small effect predicted.

Why have scientists accepted a theory which contains obvious errors and lacks any genuine experimental support? It is a difficult question, but a number of reasons can be suggested. There is first the ambiguous language used by Einstein and the nature of his errors. Units of measurements, though of fundamental importance, are seldom discussed outside specialist circles and the errors in clock comparisons are hidden away in the thought experiments.

Einstein's use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists.

Then there is the prestige of its advocates. Eddington had the full support of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Society and scientific establishments throughout the world. Taking their cue from scientists, important people in other walks of life referred to it as an outstanding achievement of the human intellect. Another powerful reason for its acceptance was suggested to me by a former president of the Royal Society. He confessed that he did not understand the theory himself, not being an expert in the subject, but he thought it must be right because he had found it so useful. This is a very important requirement in any theory but it does not follow that errors in it should be ignored.

Insofar as the theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.

Dr. Louis Essen, D.Sc., F.R.S., has spent a lifetime working at the NPL on the measurement of time and frequency. He built the first caesium clock in 1955 and determined the velocity of light by cavity resonator, in the process showing that Michelson's value was 17km/s low. In 1959, he was awarded the Popov Gold Medal of the USSR Academy of Sciences and also the OBE.

During the last 50 years the revolution from cuckoo clocks to caesium clocks has gone largely unnoticed yet many inventions from satellite navigation (GPS) to the Internet itself rely on clocks that measure time to an accuracy unheard of only a few decades ago.

At the centre of much of this change has been the work of a controversial British physicist, Louis Essen. Known as "Old Father Time", Essen built the first atomic clock, accurate to one second in 300 years - sufficient to detect minute irregularities in the spin of the Earth itself.

Essen soon realised that the definition of the second of time had now become a major block to realising the potential of his new clock.

It took a further 12 years before astronomical time ceased to exist. Essen fought to change the way the second is defined. Finally, in 1967 it was agreed internationally that the second should not be linked to the duration of the day or year (both of which vary) but to the natural periodicity of an atom of caesium.

Two of the basic measurements in physics, time and length, have both been transformed due to Essen’s work.

The basis of time measurement has switched from astronomy and the solar system to physics and the properties of the atom. His revised value for the velocity of light led to a further change in which length is now defined, not in terms of a metal bar, but the velocity of light multiplied by time.

Essen is the only British physicist ever to have been honoured for his contribution to science by both the USA and USSR during the Cold War.

He received the Rabi Award from America and the Popov Medal from the former Soviet Union.

“John Harrison (who solved the Longitude problem) benefited sailors all over the world and Louis Essen has done something similar for the space voyagers of the future”.

He angered the Royal Society and the British government in the early 70’s when he published criticisms of Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

Famous for a Second is the title of a forthcoming book about Essen’s work and how it led him into a number of protracted struggles with the scientific establishment, resulting in the suppression of some of his work. ...

Essen’s controversial views have caused him to be labelled a trouble-maker and dissident by some. The physicist who built the first atomic clock was finally stopped from writing about time in the mainstream scientific press!

... My involvement with measurement has made me increasingly aware of the complexity and uncertainties of science and of human endeavour. Even in science nothing is certain. Facts can be established only within the accuracy of the measurements and experimental results should always be accompanied by the limits of error. The most precise of all measurements is that of an interval of time, for which the limit of error is less than 1 part in a million million. ...

When the first atomic clock was made at the NPL, visiting scientists asked how I knew that it was constant. All I could say was that similar clocks made throughout the world agreed within the limits claimed, and they enabled the unit of time to be determined and used with a precision thousands of times better than the astronomical second. We had to assume it was constant until it could be shown to vary by reference to a more accurate standard. This is the position with all the standards of measurements, but my listeners did not appear to be satisfied. They believed in a perfect deterministic world.

There may be a further limit to the accuracy of scientific results resting in the foundations of the scientific structure. It was an important step forward when it was realised that the basic units should be those of mass, length and time defined in such a way as to be independent of one another, but it was not realised that this is difficult and perhaps impossible, since all measurements are made in the earth environment with its electric, magnetic and gravitational fields, the effects of which are not easily disentangled. This limitation is usually overlooked but should be considered when puzzling results are obtained.

The realisation that scientific results cannot be established with certainty, prompted the question of how science can claim to be any better than other branches of human endeavour such as philosophy and religion. Indeed I think there are similarities. It is a matter of probabilities and of what, as rational beings, we can accept as true. Some scientific results are established with such small limits of error that for all practical purposes they can be regarded as true; but others are far more speculative.

Uncertainty in life

If we regard religion with the same criteria, we can conclude that the founders of religions observed certain modes of conduct, such as contemplation, truthfulness, unselfishness and compassion led to a sense of peace and satisfaction. The same conclusions can be drawn continuously from our own observations and can be accepted as true. On the other hand there is no evidence to support the myths that have been built into formal religions. In the whole of history there has not been a single substantiated case of a virgin birth which must be regarded as allegorical, although it constitutes a cornerstone of the Christian faith. Such myths have been the cause of persecution and torture; although they have also been the inspiration of great works of art. A firmly held faith helps individuals to face life’s difficulties but, tragically, nearly all formal religions instruct the faithful to oppose and destroy all those holding a different faith. Religious intolerance has been the cause of many major wars and is at the root of much of the strife throughout the world today. It might have seemed sensible for the founders of the USSR to ban the teaching and practice of religion and I remember seeing in a Leningrad museum what in my view was an objective account of the religions of the world; but religion refused to die. It seems that mysticism has a greater appeal than rationality. Man needs a father figure to worship and a strict code of conduct to follow.

In my own time there was hope that a more rational society might be built on the lines advocated by writers like Wells and Bernal. Science was to be used for the good of humanity and the economy was to be managed by experts. International co-operation was to be secured through the United Nations, statesmen made splendid declarations about human rights which have served as an inspiration to individuals but have been ignored by states. Some of the ideas were implemented in the UK with the welfare state and the NHS which relieved millions of our poorer citizens from anxiety. The nationalised industries worked well with good co-operation between workers and management. The services, the post office, the gas, electrical and water authorities were helpful to the consumers and proud of their efficiency. The civil service was highly motivated and free from political bias. The capitalist system with adequate controls was working well. But this was all changed with a new government which believed in unfettered capitalist competition freed from the civilising restraints which had been imposed by all previous governments. This has happened at a time when it has at last been realised by all thinking people that severe restraints must be imposed if the environment is to be maintained in a condition that will support human life. The preservation of the environment is a huge task and it is to be hoped that mankind will reverse the present headlong rush to destruction.

A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality

F. Hoyle (Author), G. Burbidge (Author), J. V. Narlikar (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Scientific American

For modern readers, raised on 1984 and Kurt Cobain, anything that smacks of the mainstream arouses suspicion. So after every cosmology article in Scientific American, editors brace for an onslaught of letters demanding that alternatives to conventional theories be given their due. This book describes the best-developed such alternative: the quasi-steady-state theory, the latest incarnation of the steady-state theory that Fred Hoyle first devised in 1948. It argues that the famous cosmic microwave background radiation is diffuse starlight rather than the afterglow of a hot big bang; that stars synthesized the chemical elements usually attributed to the bang; and that matter is continuously created and ejected from the cores of galaxies. The heterodoxy is seductive. But in a commentary in the April 1999 issue of Physics Today, cosmologist Andreas Albrecht outlined the failings of the theory and the tests it would need to pass before being taken seriously by most cosmologists. If nothing else, a critical reading of this book shows that "mainstream" isn't such a dirty word after all. Science is tricky. Seemingly plausible ideas can have subtle flaws, and it takes a collective effort of problem solving to find them out.

Review

"Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, Britain's greatest living astrophysicist...launches his most comprehensive attack against the Big Bang theory, in a book with the archly subversive title A Different Approach to Cosmology...when Hoyle makes a cosmic pronouncement, it is invariably worth hearing...Together with two other respected astrophysicists, Hoyle systematically reviews the evidence for the Big Bang theory, and gives it a good kicking...it's hard not to be impressed with the audacity of the demolition job...I can only hope that I possess one-thousandth of Hoyles' fighting spirit when I, like him, have reached my 85th year." The Sunday Telegraph

"The writing style is lively and personal, and the scientific arguments are written in such a way as to be accessible to upper-division undergraduate students in physics and astrophysics. The book is very well referenced and illustrated with suitable and approproate illustrations. Recommended for upper-division undergraduates, graduate students, and two-year technical program students." Choice

"This is a fascinating book, expressing the views of three scientists who choose to go against the conventional cosmological wisdom. It is extremely important for such skepticism to exist and for such books to be written." Physics Today

"The book is a serious and professional contribution to scientific cosmology." Sky & Telescope

"Throughout the last few decades, Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant Narlikar have done the cosmology community a great service by developing and defending a serious alternative to Big Bang models of cosmic origins. A Different Approach to Cosmology is a summary of their work...by elucidating one of the hot Big Bang's competitors, the authors provide a good educational exercise for any graduate student interested in fundamental cosmology." Science

Sir Fred Hoyle and fellow authors, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Narlikar show why the paradigm debates in modern cosmology ended too soon! Their sweeping analysis includes the early static universe concepts, the Einstein, de Sitter, and Friedmann-Lemaitre relativistic models, the controversy of the classic Steady-State vs. the Big Bang, and the contemporary Big Bang paradigm. As participants, they discuss the controversies over interpretation of the Hubble velocity-distance relation, light element origins, the radio sources and their fabled distributions, the quasars, the cosmic microwave background, and large-scale matter distribution.

They summarize the accumulating evidences for intrinsic-peculiar redshifts, and ejection of compact X-ray and optical sources from active galactic nuclei. The Big Bang is found wanting both in theoretical assumption and observationally. Building on their Quasi-Steady-State cosmology, the authors propose that both observation and scale-invariant gravitational equations require us to consider an ongoing-episodic creation of matter within the universe. ...

A rare and well balanced scientific discussion of the relative merits of the new Quasi Steady State versus Big Bang concept of the Universe. This book gives the reader a feel for the basis of our understanding of the Universe. A feeling for the vast uncertainties concerning our interpretation of distant objects, such as Quasars.

Please note: This book is for serious students of cosmology. The authors presume the reader has an understanding of general relativity.

23 of 34 people found the following review helpful:

An excelent book., February 27, 2003

Having read what the other gentlements said about the book. I have not much to say. It pretty much gives a better cosmological model for our Universe than the standart model for it brings commum sense and simple logic back to the field. However, I would like to comment a sentence wrote by the Scientific American editors:

"Seemingly plausible ideas can have subtle flaws, and it takes a collective effort of problem solving to find them out."

I wonder that what is going on with mainstream Science nowadays is even worse than I thought. It look likes they assume that standart models can NOT possible be wrong and that any other models MUST fail in order to keep the standart one.

Plausible ideas are the BEST ideas in Science. Of course it still can have flaws, but as they pointed out, the flaws are often subtle. But in the illogical and nonsensical big-bang model, the flaws are OBVIOUS. Also, if you read this book or "Seeing Red" by Alton Harp or "Dark Matter, missing planets and new comets" by Tom V. Flandern, you will find out (in spite of what the Scientific American are trying to tell you) that in fact the standart model IS durty.

I strongly recommend this book because I have found a logical truth and I'd like you find it by yourself as well: The Universe is infinity in space and time and the so-called Big-Bang actually NEVER happened.

You can buy this book new from Amazon at the above link, but you can get a second-hardback copy from Abebooks much more cheaply: http://www.abebooks.com/

Professor Paul Marmet, Ph. D. (1932-2005) - Order of Canada, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, President of the Canadian Association of Physicists (1981-82) - defied Orthodoxy and was hounded for it. He was forced to publish in fringe journals like 21st Century Science and Technology.

{quote} It is widely believed among scientists that the universe was created from an extremely dense concentration of material. The original expansion of this material is described as the Big Bang. ...

Prominent scientists like R. L. Millikan and Edwin Hubble thought that the Big Bang model created more problems for cosmology than it solved, and that photon energy loss was a simpler and "less irrational" explanation of the redshift than its interpretation as a Doppler effect caused by recessional velocity, in keeping with the Big Bang (Reber 1989; Hubble 1937). In more recent years, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén, and other students of astrophysical plasma, have challenged the Big Bang with an alternative conception called Plasma Universe. In this cosmology, the universe has always existed and has never been concentrated in a point; galaxies and clusters of galaxies are shaped not only by gravity, but by electrical and magnetic fields over longer times that available in the Big Bang model (Peratt 1988, 1989; Bostick 1989). ...

Support for the Big Bang theory has been built upon three main kinds of evidence:

First, the Big Bang assumes that the observable universe is expanding. Proof of this is offered by interpreting the redshifts of remote galaxies and many other systems as Doppler shifts. Hence these redshifts "prove" that these systems are all flying away from each other.

Second, the Big bang theory predicts the cosmic abundance of some light elements like helium-4, deuterium, and lithium-7. The available evidence of cosmic abundances is said to confirm the predictions.

Third, Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow in 1948 used the Big bang theory to predict the existence of a low temperature background radiation throughout the universe at 25 K as a relic of the initial Big Bang explosion. A background radiation at a temperature of about 3 K (emitting radiation 5000 times less intense, see Planck's law) has indeed been discovered(2), and is being interpreted as the predicted relic.

Finally, in addition to these kind of evidence, it is claimed that the Big bang hypothesis agrees with Einstein's theory of relativity.

The support afforded by the Big bang model by these four arguments is, however, only apparent and does not withstand a serious detailed analysis. In fact, the observational evidence from astrophysics is more in keeping with the model suggested by this author of an unlimited universe. ...
{endquote}

The aim of this book is to demonstrate that using "Conventional Wisdom" and "Conventional Logic", classical physics can explain all the observed phenomena attributed to relativity. The arbitrary principles of Einstein's relativity are thus useless.

It is very important to recognize the fundamental importance of the principle of mass-energy conservation. It took thousands of years of development for scientific thought to finally reject the magic of witchcraft. During the nineteenth century, scientists became convinced that matter cannot be created from nothing. Conversely, matter cannot be destroyed into nothing. It seems that even Einstein believed this, since he is the one who, at the beginning of the twentieth century, introduced the equation E = mc2 implying mass-energy conservation. However, he later developed general relativity which is not compatible with that principle. Indeed, according to Straumann [1], the:

"general conservation law of energy and momentum does not exist in general relativity".

Twentieth century science moved backward in accepting again the magical creation of matter or energy from nothing, even if this is hidden in complicated mathematics.

Contrary to what Einstein did, all the demonstrations in this book are compatible with the principle of mass-energy and momentum conservation. Using classical mechanics, we demonstrate that length contraction is a real physical phenomenon. We examine how this leads to the Lorentz equations. Then, we show how classical principles are sufficient to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury and derive Einstein's equation. The fundamental reason for this advance is illustrated with a classical apparatus. We also study the Lorentz transformations in three dimensions and the Doppler phenomenon. Then we see how the problems brought by the relativity of simultaneity and by the principle of equivalence can be explained using conventional logic. We also show how classical mechanisms produce perturbations in the internal structure of atoms and molecules. Finally, we show that the presence of intense gravitational potentials leads to degenerate matter corresponding to Schwarzschild's black holes.

Einstein's relativity principles are not needed in these demonstrations. The only principles used are the ones already existing in classical mechanics. All the solutions are based on a physical model compatible with conventional logic. ...
{endquote}

I wrote to Marmet as follows:

{quote}
May 13, 1999 Dear Professor,

I have sent for your Einstein book, and will send off for the Absurdities one next week. However, just browsing the text on the Internet, it seemed that the Absurdities one was jettisoning Newton in favour of Relativity, while the Einstein one was jettisoning Einstein in favour of Classical Mechanics (which implies Newton). Can I ask, is there any contradiction between the two books? That is, did you change your mind at some point? If so, have you written anything elucidating that change in viewpoint?
{endquote}

The main aim of my two last books is to prove that a description of nature is compatible with physical reality.

It is usually claimed in modern physics that both: "Quantum Mechanics" and "Relativity" cannot be described using conventional logic. That is wrong. In my two last books, I have shown that nature is compatible with physical reality. ----------------------

There are two main problems in physics.

One is related to Quantum Mechanics, and the other one is related to Relativity. The problems related to "quantum mechanics" do not have the same nature as the problem related to "relativity". Quantum mechanics is a part of physics for which the "mathematics" give correct predictions. The "mathematics" of quantum mechanics appears coherent. However, the physical interpretations of quantum mechanics (The Copenhagen Interpretation) (for example the Shroedinger's cat experiment and others) are totally absurd as shown in my book.

In the case of relativity, the problem is different because relativity is based on contradictory hypotheses and therefore the mathematics are NOT COHERENT (for example, mass-energy conservation and momentum are not conserved in general relativity). ----------------------

I could not explain these two huge problems simultaneously. In order to be understandable, I have decided to discuss Quantum Mechanics, using "momentarily" the standard understanding (and vocabulary) of Relativity. This book was published in 1993.

Then, four years later, in 1997, I described the second part, the problem of Relativity, to complete the logical description of physics and explain how classical physics can also explain all the phenomena usually attributed to Einstein's relativity.

Of course, there exists a chronological order. This could not be avoided because I cannot discuss two inter-related problems at the same time. I had to use (temporarily) the standard Einstein's vocabulary of relativity, in the first book (on quantum mechanics), otherwise there would be too much confusion. ---------------------

This cannot be avoided. It is the same thing as when you go to cinema and you see the second part of the film BEFORE the first. If the film makers in Hollywood know how to solve that problem, please let me know. I do not know how to do it. May be the book published in 1993 should be read before the one in 1997! -----------------------

However, both books are certainly coherent and show that "conventional logic"is compatible with physical reality. ...

Paul
{endquote}

Marmet further wrote to me, in reply to my query about whether the universe is bounded:

> Einstein stated that his universe (based on
> Relativity theory) is finite in size - bounded.
>
> What about yours?

I believe that the universe is unlimited in size and in time.

> What are the implications, i.e. what difference does
> it make whether the universe is bounded or not?

There are many implications.

1- Einstein Universe requires that it was created from absolutely nothing. Therefore, our universe has been created following a "cause" which had to exist before the beginning of time! No mass-nergy conservation.

2- Matter of the universe just after the Big Bang must had an enormous density (with the Big Bang Model) which corresponds to a gigantic Black Hole. According to Einstein, such a high concentration of matter cannot expand. It should collapse. There is the a lack of coherence in Einstein's relativity if the universe started with a Big Bang. Einstein changes his own laws when it seems fit to him.

3- Creation from nothing is not compatible with the principle of causality.

4- The "velocity interpretation" of the redshift by Einstein implies that the mass of some remote (but apparently normal galaxies) is so large that their mass must be equal to millions of time the mass of our galaxy. Furthermore, some remote stars have been seen to explode giving up an amount of light that requires mass of billion of times the Sun's mass. This is measured considering the extremely large amount of light emitted during the explosion. Again, according to relativity such a large mass cannot expode. It should be a perfect Black Hole for which even light cannot be emitted due to the enormous gravity.

5- It is observed that many clusters of galaxies are so large that the time required for their formation is much larger than the 15 billion of the universe.

6- Recently, NASA has reported the discovery of some "mature" galaxies with a redshift value of 8.0 This corresponds to an observation of an object formed LESS than one billion years after the Big Bang (as they say). However, it takes 5 to 10 billions years to form such a galaxy. Therefore the galaxy started its formation 4 to 9 billions years BEFORE THE BIG BANG. This is ridiculous.

7- 8- 9- ... etc...

Who needs more arguments?

The universe is without limits. Matter is continuously re-transformed after a period of about 15 billion years.

Sincerely,

Paul Marmet
{endquote}

I believe that I put Marmet in touch with Caroline H. Thompson, of similar spirit. She later displayed a letter from him on her website (see below). I did so because such dissidents feel isolated, and need mutual support. Both have since passed away.

When I am looking at your Web site, I particularly appreciate the papers and useful addresses of some scientists on your site.

As you know, I am retired from the physics department of the university of Ottawa. However, during the last three years, I still had an office at the university, as a voluntary professor, because I was the supervisor of a graduate student (completing his Ph. D. in electron spectroscopy). A few months ago, he completed his degree and I have been ordered to leave my office at the university. The head of the department explained that it was because I keep questioning the fundamental principles of physics. The exact words were: "Ton problème est que tu remets en question les principes fondamentaux de la physique".

I cannot stop doing it.

I am now working full time at home. ...

On your site, you mention my book: Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution. published in 1993. If you wish to add a link, there is a complete (free) copy of that book on the Web at the address: {updated - Peter M.} http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/index.html

For your information, there is a more recent book I have published in 1997 entitled: "Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics". It is also on the Web. You can make your Free Copy on the Web. In case you wish to add a link on the Web, the address is: {updated - Peter M.} http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/einstein/index.html

The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed yesterday.

Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.

Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia.

De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.

A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921. ... ==

Michael Falotico's review of Umberto Bartocci's book

A review by Michael Falotico of the book written by Professor Umberto Bartocci

Umberto Bartocci, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Perugia, Italy, in his book, "Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto: la vera storia della formula piu' famosa del mondo" (Albert Einstein and Olinto De Pretto, the true history of the most famous formula in the world) has shown to us what can happen if one digs long enough through old Italian archives. His book literally re-writes the history of science in the 20th Century. Professor Bartocci proves that an Italian first formulated the famous equation E=mc^2.

An industrialist named Olinto De Pretto, a native of the Veneto region of Italy, published an article in which he gave, in its final form, the equation E=mc^2. This article was published on June 16, 1903, and published again in February 27, 1904, the second time in the Atti of the Reale Instituto Veneto di Scienze. De Pretto thereby preceded Einstein's famous 1905 "E=mc^2" paper by at least a year-and-a-half.

To Professor Bartocci's credit, he attaches the complete text of the De Pretto article as an appendix to his book so that the reader can decide for himself/herself if De Pretto was a true precursor to Einstein.

In the article, Olinto De Pretto actually comments on how amazing his discovery is. De Pretto could hardly believe his mathematical discovery. ...

De Pretto himself understood the significance of his discovery. Speaking of E=mc^2 he wrote (my translation), "To what astonishing result has our reasoning brought us? Nobody would easily admit that stored in a latent state, in a kilogram of whatever material, completely hidden from our investigations, there comes into play such a sum of energy. The idea would be adjudged crazy!" De Pretto was 46 years old when he made this discovery. ...

About Me

'Mission statement'.
I am convinced that jewish individuals and groups have an enormous influence on the world. The MSM are, for almost all people, the only source of information, and these are largely controlled by jewish people.
So there is a huge under-reporting on jewish influence in the world.
I see it as my mission to try to close this gap. To quote Henry Ford: "Corral the 50 wealthiest jews and there will be no wars." `(Thomas Friedman wrote the same in Haaretz, about the war against Iraq! See yellow marked area, blog 573)
If that is true, my mission must be very beneficial to humanity.